## Abstract This article examines the effect of disappointment aversion on futures hedging. We incorporated a constant‐absolute‐risk‐aversion (CARA) utility function into the disappointment‐aversion framework of Gul (1991). It is shown that a more disappointment‐averse hedger will choose an optimal
A Note on Loss Aversion and Futures Hedging
✍ Scribed by Donald Lien
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2001
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 103 KB
- Volume
- 21
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0270-7314
- DOI
- 10.1002/fut.1704
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
This note examines the effect of loss aversion on the futures trading behavior of a short hedger. Using a modified constant‐absolute‐risk‐aversion utility function, I show that loss aversion has no effect in an unbiased futures market. It has different, predictable impacts when the futures market is in backwardation or contango. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 21: 681–692, 2001
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract This article considers optimal futures hedging decisions when the hedger is disappointment‐averse (Gul, 1991). When the futures contract is a perfect hedge instrument, a disappointment‐averse hedger always holds a position closer to the full hedge than a nondisappointment‐averse hedger.
This note incorporates asymmetric responses to good and bad news within a stochastic volatility framework. It is shown that the asymmetry leads to a greater average optimal hedge ratio. Moreover, the ratio increases with increasing degree of asymmetry. On the other hand, asymmetry has no impact on t
## Abstract Our research is motivated by the Corn Products vs Arkansas Best Supreme court decisions that brought on the controversy of the tax treatment of gains and losses from futures hedging. The usefulness of a futures contract as risk management tool depends on the tax code. In this paper we a
T w o recent studies [Hill and Schneeweis (H&S) (forthcoming) and Dale (1981)l
The conventional approach applies an estimated optimal hedge ratio to evaluate and compare hedging performance. This note shows that the approach produces a biased result. Moreover, it tends to underestimate the true hedging performance.